SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Saraswati & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6857 of 2022 [Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No.8736 of 2016]
Decided On : 22-09-2022
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC can only be entertained on a substantial question of law – Proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be, whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects rights of parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by Supreme Court – If the question is settled by highest court or general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or question raised is palpably absurd, question would not be a substantial question of law. (Paras 23 and 31)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on decision of case – An entirely new point raised for first time before High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to root of matter – It will depend on facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, paramount overall consideration being need for striking a judicious balance between indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in life of any lis – An inference of fact from recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact – But legal effect of terms of a document is a question of law – Construction of a document involving application of any principle of law, is also a question of law – When there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law – High Court should be satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law – General rule is that High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by courts below – But it is not an absolute rule. (Paras 32 and 33)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 136 – Appeal – Right of appeal is not automatic – Right of appeal is conferred by Statute – When Statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to Supreme Court to sit in appeal over factual findings arrived at by First Appellate Court. (Para 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal filed by the Original Plaintiff (Since deceased, represented by his legal representatives), is against a final judgment and order dated 11th January 2016 passed by Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, allowing Second Appeal No. 45 of 1995 filed by Respondents, reversing the judgment and order dated 10th November 1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No.361 of 1984 and dismissing Regular Civil Suit No. 198 of 1979 filed by the Original Plaintiff praying for relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property.
Findings of Court:
The questions raised in High Court, did not meet the tests laid down by this Court for holding that the questions are substantial questions of law. We are constrained to hold that there was no question of law, let alone any substantial question of law, involved in the Second Appeal.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal filed by the Original Plaintiff, Chandrabhan, (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives), is against a final judgment and order dated 11th January 2016 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, allowing Second Appeal No. 45 of 1995 filed by the Respondents, reversing the judgment and order dated 10th November 1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No.361 of 1984 and dismissing Regular Civil Suit No. 198 of 1979 filed by the Original Plaintiff praying for the relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property.
3. Sambhaji, grandfather of the Original Plaintiff, Chandrabhan had two sons, Baliram and Rambhau. Baliram was the elder of the two sons of Sambhaji. The Original Defendant No.1 Yamunabai, was the wife of Baliram.
4. Baliram and Yamunabai (Original Defendant No.1) were childless, Rambhau, younger brother of Baliram however had two sons, Digamber and Chandrabhan (Original Plaintiff).
5. Since Baliram and Yamunabai were childless, Baliram decided to adopt his nephew, Chandrabhan (Original Plaintiff). Chandrabhan (Original Plaintiff) was Baliram’s younger brother Rambhau’s son, as noted above. It is stated that Baliram and Rambhau had mutually agreed that Baliram would adopt Rambhau’s son, Chandrabhan (Original Plaintiff).
6. In the plaint, it was pleaded that the Original Plaintiff, Chandrabhan was adopted by his uncle Baliram, in accordance with the rites and customs of the community, in a ceremony attended by relatives, neighbours and friends. According to the Appellants, the Original Plaintiff Chandrabhan was about 14 years of age at the time of his adoption by his paternal uncle Baliram, who became his adoptive father.
7. Baliram died intestate, in 1951, about six months after he adopted the Original Plaintiff. After the death of his adoptive father Baliram, the Original Plaintiff Chandrabhan shifted to a nearby village, from where he managed the properties left by Baliram. The Original Defendant No.2 Champabai is the first wife of the Original Plaintiff, Chandrabhan. In 1979, the Original Defendant No. 1, Yamunabai, wife of Baliram purportedly gifted the suit properties to the Original Defendant No. 2 Champabai, wife of the Original Plaintiff.
8. On 8th May 1979, the Original Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 198 of 1979, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Beed, Maharashtra against the Original Defendant No.1 being Yamunabai, the wife of Baliram and the Original Defendant No.2 being Champabai, his own first wife praying for declaration of ownership of the suit properties, perpetual injunction and other reliefs. The Original Defendants filed their written statements in the suit contending that the Original Plaintiff had not been adopted by Baliram.
9. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being the Original Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 in the suit, filed their written statement in the suit supporting the stand of the Original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
10. The Original Plaintiff examined himself as well as five other witnesses, including Prabhu Yogiraj Swami, the priest who conducted the rituals at the time of adoption, to prove that he had been adopted by Baliram. The Original Plaintiff also examined Shahurao Tulsiram Dhas to prove that he had the possession and cultivation of the suit lands. The Respondents, on the other hand, examined Original Defendant No.2, Champabai and several others to establish that the Original Plaintiff had not been legally and/or validly adopted by Baliram.
11. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed, Maharashtra being the Trial Court dismissed the Regular Civil Suit No. 198 of 1979, by a judgment and order dated 31st July 1984.
12. On 5th November 1984, the Original Plaintiff filed an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.361 of 1984 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Beed, Maharashtra being the First Appellat
H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa (Dead) by LRs. And Others
Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. and Another
Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Others
Sir Chunnilal V. Lal Mehta & Sons v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
(1) Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC can only be entertained on a substantial question of law – High Court should be satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere q....
Registered adoption documents presume compliance with the law; the burden rests on the claimant to disprove, which may not simply rely on allegations of fraud.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff proved his case as the adopted son and was entitled to the lands. The court also highlighted the requirements of a valid adoptio....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving adoption as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and the necessity of formulating substantial questions of law at the ti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and the physical act of giving and taking of adoption did not take place in acc....
A registered adoption deed provides only a rebuttable presumption of validity under the statute. The burden to prove the actual ceremony remains on the propounder, and the claim fails if evidence is ....
Point of law: Capacity of a male Hindu to take in adoption-Any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption. Provided that, if he has a ....
The validity of adoption requires clear, cogent evidence of factum, including actual giving and taking; mere documentation is insufficient without proof of the legal requirements.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove adoption strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, including the con....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.